NationStates Jolt Archive

It started a few weeks back when Barack Obama decided to freeze out Fox News following their attack pieces on him. They were the primary television people behind the "Obama might be an ebil Muslim" story that first appeared n a magazine printed by the Moonie Times.

It continued when John Edwards decided to forgo a debate co-sponsored by the Nevada Democratic party and Fox News. People all over left-blogistan decried the pairing of the Nevada Dems and Fox News, remembering all the bullshit Fox pulled in the 2004 primary season debates they hosted. (Misleading scrawls, banners that read "Democrat Primary debates," post-mortems done by hostile pundits--that sort of stuff.)

Well, thanks to pressure from other groups and the refusal of other candidates to commit to the debate--Richardson announced he was pulling out an hour before this happened--the debate is dead. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3069.html) Fox News will not be involved in any Democratic debate in Nevada.

Well done. Let them talk to Joe Lieberman some more.

I hope this has an effect on Fox other than to give Hannity something else to bitch about.

I hope this has an effect on Fox other than to give Hannity something else to bitch about.It won't. They got where they are by being a propaganda arm, and neither Murdoch nor Ailes have any reason to change their strategy.

Don't think it will work... they'll find some way to make this look bad for the Democrats somehow.

Don't think it will work... they'll find some way to make this look bad for the Democrats somehow.

Oh, they'll certainly spin it that way. I can even tell you how--they'll say Democrats are afraid to face hard-hitting journalism. Democrats need to shrug it off, tell Fox that when they stop fellating Republicans on the air every day, Democrats will come back and talk to them, but not before.

Fox will probably spew some bullshit about Dems being afraid to face the American people or something by shutting down the debate. Clearly the ebil liberals have something to hide by rejecting Fox! :eek:

Fox will probably spew some bullshit about Dems being afraid to face the American people or something by shutting down the debate. Clearly the ebil liberals have something to hide by rejecting Fox! :eek:

What Dems would need to do would be to say "Sorry, we don't speak to people who don't even bother to check their facts most of the time" and use the "Obama might be an evil muslim" rant by Fox as a prime example.

What Dems would need to do would be to say "Sorry, we don't speak to people who don't even bother to check their facts most of the time" and use the "Obama might be an evil muslim" rant by Fox as a prime example.

Yep. Let Fox News rant and rave about what cowards the Democrats are all they want. The only ones who'll be left listening to them are the people who wouldn't vote for a Democrat on a bet.

It continued when John Edwards decided to forgo a debate co-sponsored by the Nevada Democratic party and Fox News

LOL!!! I never thought Edwards would forgo a debate sponsered by his own party. Talk about snubbing.

As to the rest of this thread:

*YAWNS*

Yep. Let Fox News rant and rave about what cowards the Democrats are all they want.

The thing is, there needs to be a counter-balance to Fox News. A campaign that would take their fake ass ramblings, throw it back in their faces and leave them with all the credibility of toilet scrawls in the minds of even the thickest numskull.

LOL!!! I never thought Edwards would forgo a debate sponsered by his own party. Talk about snubbing.

As to the rest of this thread:

*YAWNS*

He was the first, but he wasn't the only one. Richardson, who had originally agreed, backed out also, and none of the other candidates had agreed to appear either. This was a slap in the face to Fox News, make no mistake about it. And what was the final nail in the coffin? Roger Ailes did it to his own network: (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/rtndf_1st_amendment_awards_transcript_of_roger_ailes_acceptance_speech_54637.asp#more)

It is true that just in the last two weeks Hillary Clinton has had over 200 phone calls telling her in order to win the presidency she must stay on the road for the next two years. It is not true they were all from Bill.

[Laughter]

And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?'

The thing is, there needs to be a counter-balance to Fox News. A campaign that would take their fake ass ramblings, throw it back in their faces and leave them with all the credibility of toilet scrawls in the minds of even the thickest numskull.

Right now, there's just the blogs, and they do okay on it, though they reach a limited audience. I think the proof that Fox News's influence is declining is in the fact that they've gotten way more strident in their support of Bush since the November elections. They've given up any semblance whatsoever of being fair and balanced.

The thing is, there needs to be a counter-balance to Fox News. A campaign that would take their fake ass ramblings, throw it back in their faces and leave them with all the credibility of toilet scrawls in the minds of even the thickest numskull.

Yeah... it's called "reality". :D

Jeebus, I can’t believe there’s going to be over a year more of this shit.

Have your fucking election already.

Right now, there's just the blogs, and they do okay on it, though they reach a limited audience. I think the proof that Fox News's influence is declining is in the fact that they've gotten way more strident in their support of Bush since the November elections. They've given up any semblance whatsoever of being fair and balanced.

It's not enough. There are still quite a few thick skulls out there who believe Fox is 'gospel'. The campaign should pick up pace until Fox is run into the ground and closes shop forever or it actually cleans up its act.

Yeah... it's called "reality". :D

The conservative response to reality when it contradicts them is that it has a liberal bias, and they beat that drum constantly.

It's not enough. There are still quite a few thick skulls out there who believe Fox is 'gospel'. The campaign should pick up pace until Fox is run into the ground and closes shop forever or it actually cleans up its act. But it's something, and it's the next wave. Something like 70% of people under age 30 don't get their news from television anymore. They get it online. As that grows--and it will, with the next generation being even more hooked in--tv news will have less of an impact on society, and the blogs have already shown the propensity in the last election cycle, to affect the news that gets on television. Remember "macaca?" That would never have made the news if not for the blogs, and if not for that, not only do the Dems not have control of the Senate, but George Allen is probably an early frontrunner for the 2008 presidential nomination.

The thing is, there needs to be a counter-balance to Fox News. A campaign that would take their fake ass ramblings, throw it back in their faces and leave them with all the credibility of toilet scrawls in the minds of even the thickest numskull.
http://www.bradblog.com/Images/FoxOReilly_MarkFoleyDEM_DailyShow_100406.jpg

http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/photos/uncategorized/cr_2044_word_m4.jpg

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/FoxOReilly_MarkFoleyDEM_DailyShow_100406.jpg

http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/photos/uncategorized/cr_2044_word_m4.jpg

so true... they make news fun

The conservative response to reality when it contradicts them is that it has a liberal bias, and they beat that drum constantly.

Well, let's face it, reality does have a liberal bias. Reality bears a much closer resemblance to the way liberals view it than to the way Fox News views it. If they don't like it, that's their problem.

He was the first, but he wasn't the only one. Richardson, who had originally agreed, backed out also, and none of the other candidates had agreed to appear either. This was a slap in the face to Fox News, make no mistake about it. And what was the final nail in the coffin? Roger Ailes did it to his own network: (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/rtndf_1st_amendment_awards_transcript_of_roger_ailes_acceptance_speech_54637.asp#more)
To be fair, those aren't bad jokes. He should be writing for that dreadful Fox rip-off of TDS. They might not need a laugh track then.

To be fair, those aren't bad jokes. He should be writing for that dreadful Fox rip-off of TDS. They might not need a laugh track then.

No, they're bad jokes.

Well, let's face it, reality does have a liberal bias. Reality bears a much closer resemblance to the way liberals view it than to the way Fox News views it. If they don't like it, that's their problem.

Exactly, ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN are a thousand times more biased than Fox is.

The alphabet channels even tried to steal the election for Gore in 2000 by calling the state of Florida early for him.

The thing is, there needs to be a counter-balance to Fox News. A campaign that would take their fake ass ramblings, throw it back in their faces and leave them with all the credibility of toilet scrawls in the minds of even the thickest numskull.

The Daily Show?

Does it worry anyone else when a comedy show has more credibility than one of the largest news networks in the world?

Exactly, ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN are a thousand times more biased than Fox is.

The alphabet channels even tried to steal the election for Gore in 2000 by calling the state of Florida early for him.

The joke's up!

It's up!

It's over your head! TOUCHDOWN!

Exactly, ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN are a thousand times more biased than Fox is.

The alphabet channels even tried to steal the election for Gore in 2000 by calling the state of Florida correctly for him.
Fixed. ;)

The Daily Show?

Does it worry anyone else when a comedy show has more credibility than one of the largest news networks in the world?

No. I'm pleased as punch.

Then again, I'm me. :)

Exactly, ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN are a thousand times more biased than Fox is.

The alphabet channels even tried to steal the election for Gore in 2000 by calling the state of Florida early for him.

How does that help Gore? The only effect that could have is to make Florida Gore voters who waited until the last minute think that the vote is already decided in Gore's favor and give them an excuse to stay home. If it did anything it COST Gore votes.

How does that help Gore? The only effect that could have is to make Florida Gore voters who waited until the last minute think that the vote is already decided in Gore's favor and give them an excuse to stay home. If it did anything it COST Gore votes.

Shh, don't upset the n00b's carefully-cultured state of open denial.

Exactly, ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN are a thousand times more biased than Fox is.

The alphabet channels even tried to steal the election for Gore in 2000 by calling the state of Florida early for him.

The news stations were simply trying to outdo each other by being the first to announce a state going to either Bush or Gore. By doing so they seriously jumped the gun where Florida was concerned. It was all about ratings, if you think otherwise than you are too far into Fox propaganda to ever be healed.

It won't. They got where they are by being a propaganda arm, and neither Murdoch nor Ailes have any reason to change their strategy.

How many times do we have to say this?

AUSTRALIA IS SORRY FOR UNLEASHING MURDOCH!

Well, Howard isn't (he isn't sorry about anything, perfect example of 'staying the course')

The thing is, there needs to be a counter-balance to Fox News. A campaign that would take their fake ass ramblings, throw it back in their faces and leave them with all the credibility of toilet scrawls in the minds of even the thickest numskull.

An independant and objective news station would indeed be a good idea. Problem is how one should set up the financing...

How many times do we have to say this?

AUSTRALIA IS SORRY FOR UNLEASHING MURDOCH!

Well, Howard isn't (he isn't sorry about anything, perfect example of 'staying the course')

Actually Howard and Murdoch apparently hate each other. Murdoch's paper's used to savage Howard here, and even since Howard's sucking up to GW Bush they've not been that kind to him. At least part of their disagreement is over Howard's support for the Monarchy and how he effectively hobbled the push for a republic in 1998, because Murdoch wants a republic in Australia (maybe so there can be an Australian Republican party or something).

Actually Howard and Murdoch apparently hate each other. Murdoch's paper's used to savage Howard here, and even since Howard's sucking up to GW Bush they've not been that kind to him. At least part of their disagreement is over Howard's support for the Monarchy and how he effectively hobbled the push for a republic in 1998, because Murdoch wants a republic in Australia (maybe so there can be an Australian Republican party or something).

Hmm, it came out the wrong way.

I mean that Howard doesn't really apologise that much and he is even more 'staying the course' than Bush is.

A Republic wouldn't be that great and the shared monarchy isn't anything to rave about either.

The Daily Show?

Does it worry anyone else when a comedy show has more credibility than one of the largest news networks in the world?

No. I'm pleased as punch.

Then again, I'm me. :)

http://ken_ashford.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/finch3.jpg

An independant and objective news station would indeed be a good idea. Problem is how one should set up the financing...

That really is the problem. I don't think it's a coincidence that in the study done back in 2003-4 that looked at viewers' misconceptions about the Iraq War, not only were the people who were most wrong largely Fox viewers, but that people who got the most right watched PBS and listened to NPR, both publicly and viewer-funded organizations. No pressure to make a profit may have had something to do with their accuracy.

That really is the problem.Such insight...

You could easily do something about it though. Simply establish a taxfunded public service channel, clearly define it's charter, and make it off-limites to private investment and political affils. Lots of countries do this, and unsurprisingly, those media outlets tends to be the most objective and accurate in those countries.

State owned doesn't have to mean state controlled.

Then again, what do I care? I'm all for the US disintegrating.

Ahhh boohoo the dems can't handle someone who disagree's with them what is new? The Republicans have been dealing with CNN CBS ABC etc. for years with all their negative coverage of anything republican and positive review of everything democratic (with the exception of Dobbs on CNN and every once in a while he does something stupid). I say if the Demmies are gonna cry about this the republicans should refuse to deal with CNN CBS ABC etc until they agree to actually attempt to be unbiased (seriously watch a CNN "conservative" pundit and he is only barely more stomachable than the liberal ones which are simply sickening) at least Fox will give you a serious conservative along side a serious liberal. Besides if the democrats won't let Fox run their debates they won't get as large a viewing audience since Fox's ratings continue to rise in comparison with those other "news" stations.

I'm all for the US disintegrating.
As much as I don't like the policies of the US in many cases, I don't want to be around if the US disintegrates. We've got a lot of bombs.

Oh, go pick a fight in the schoolyard, willya?

I have to put up with CNN at work all the time I can tell you they are extremely biased 10-1 stories support the Dems.

Ahhh boohoo the dems can't handle someone who disagree's with them what is new? The Republicans have been dealing with CNN CBS ABC etc. for years with all their negative coverage of anything republican and positive review of everything democratic (with the exception of Dobbs on CNN and every once in a while he does something stupid). I say if the Demmies are gonna cry about this the republicans should refuse to deal with CNN CBS ABC etc until they agree to actually attempt to be unbiased (seriously watch a CNN "conservative" pundit and he is only barely more stomachable than the liberal ones which are simply sickening) at least Fox will give you a serious conservative along side a serious liberal. Besides if the democrats won't let Fox run their debates they won't get as large a viewing audience since Fox's ratings continue to rise in comparison with those other "news" stations.

you're funny.

Ahhh boohoo the dems can't handle someone who disagree's with them what is new? The Republicans have been dealing with CNN CBS ABC etc. for years with all their negative coverage of anything republican and positive review of everything democratic (with the exception of Dobbs on CNN and every once in a while he does something stupid). I say if the Demmies are gonna cry about this the republicans should refuse to deal with CNN CBS ABC etc until they agree to actually attempt to be unbiased (seriously watch a CNN "conservative" pundit and he is only barely more stomachable than the liberal ones which are simply sickening) at least Fox will give you a serious conservative along side a serious liberal. Besides if the democrats won't let Fox run their debates they won't get as large a viewing audience since Fox's ratings continue to rise in comparison with those other "news" stations.

Oh, go pick a fight in the schoolyard, willya?

I'm not from america but for a while I actually had FOX news. It was great for comic values because I used to watch Bill O'reilly and laugh, literally.

(seriously watch a CNN "conservative" pundit and he is only barely more stomachable than the liberal ones which are simply sickening)
you mean Glenn Beck? The guy who equated political correctness with Soviet war crimes? I'd say he's pretty conservative.

at least Fox will give you a serious conservative along side a serious liberal. Besides if the democrats won't let Fox run their debates they won't get as large a viewing audience since Fox's ratings continue to rise in comparison with those other "news" stations.

You mean Colmes? The guy who says like one sentence per night?

I have to put up with CNN at work all the time I can tell you they are extremely biased 10-1 stories support the Dems.

How terribly difficult for you. I recommend the following:

http://www.investingator.com/rose-tints.jpg

you mean Glenn Beck? The guy who equated political correctness with Soviet war crimes? I'd say he's pretty conservative.



You mean Colmes? The guy who says like one sentence per night?

The Judge is pretty liberal, the guy who interviewed Clinton is fairly middle of the road with liberal sympathies.

And have you watched the "Out in the Open bringing discrimination out in the open" on CNN? Their "conservative" pundits are laughable, the whole segment is pretty laughable.

You could easily do something about it though. Simply establish a taxfunded public service channel, clearly define it's charter, and make it off-limites to private investment and political affils. Lots of countries do this, and unsurprisingly, those media outlets tends to be the most objective and accurate in those countries.

Those countries do not employ a two-party system limited to a small section of the political spectrum to govern them. An strong opposition is needed to keep the agendas pure.

You mean Colmes? The guy who says like one sentence per night?

And who's a self-described moderate?

And have you watched the "Out in the Open bringing discrimination out in the open" on CNN? Their "conservative" pundits are laughable, the whole segment is pretty laughable.

I saw a pundit on that show claim that if we didn't invade Iraq there would be a 9/11 every week and that President Bush is one of the most successful presidents in US history, sounds pretty conservative to me. Besides, that show isn't about left/right politics it's about social issues.

Well, thanks to pressure from other groups and the refusal of other candidates to commit to the debate--Richardson announced he was pulling out an hour before this happened--the debate is dead. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3069.html) Fox News will not be involved in any Democratic debate in Nevada.

Well done. Let them talk to Joe Lieberman some more.

:rolleyes:

Now if the Republican candidates do the same thing to CNN everyone can go home happy. :eek:

:rolleyes:

Now if the Republican candidates do the same thing to CNN everyone can go home happy. :eek:

Republicans would never do that to CNN because CNN's bias is corporate, not liberal, and Republicans are all about the corporations. Be real here--the closest thing to Fox News on the left--and I'm talking strictly about promoting a specific point of view, not about accuracy--is Pacifica, which does Democracy Now among other programs.

Besides if its over Obama that all this has started I think Fox is in the right, he needs to be scrutinized and looked over carefully like all candidates. Without CNN CBS etc we would have problems just like we had when we didn't have Fox and more conservative stations (Which happen to reflect the majority Bush won in this last election by popular majority (51% of the popular vote) the first time that has happened since 1988.

:rolleyes:

Now if the Republican candidates do the same thing to CNN everyone can go home happy. :eek:

absolutly, that way I can get actual news AND not have to listen to republicans speak.

Sounds good to me.

Fox has the right to look into Obama, eh? Ok, as long as they don't try to smear his name by shouting he's a MUSLIM EXTREMIST again or something similar. But I think such restraint is too much to hope for where Fox is concerned.

So many Fox apologists seem to miss the line between "looking into" and "making shit up." I wonder why that is?

Besides if its over Obama that all this has started I think Fox is in the right, he needs to be scrutinized and looked over carefully like all candidates. Without CNN CBS etc we would have problems just like we had when we didn't have Fox and more conservative stations (Which happen to reflect the majority Bush won in this last election by popular majority (51% of the popular vote) the first time that has happened since 1988.

Fox has the right to look into Obama, eh? Ok, as long as they don't try to smear his name by shouting he's a MUSLIM EXTREMIST again or something similar. But I think such restraint is too much to hope for where Fox is concerned.

Republicans would never do that to CNN because CNN's bias is corporate, not liberal, and Republicans are all about the corporations. Be real here--the closest thing to Fox News on the left--and I'm talking strictly about promoting a specific point of view, not about accuracy--is Pacifica, which does Democracy Now among other programs.

Ok, if you say so...:rolleyes:

Ok, if you say so...:rolleyes:

Fine. Stay ignorant. It's a free country (for now).

Ok, if you say so...:rolleyes:

No, CNN's bias is corporate because it is, not because he says so, smartass. Honestly, do you really think the opinion of someone who thinks that everyone who isn't as reactionary as him (meaning everyone else on the planet, apparently) is a "liberal", and uses the word as if it were some sort of insult matters to anyone? Let me clear that up for you: it doesn't. Congratulations, you've just become the first person to be permanently placed on my ignore list.

i find it amusing that, in a country that allegedly exists to promote the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, a country where an effigy known as the 'statue of liberty' is its most famous landmark, the word 'liberal' is regarded as such a negative concept by so many of its citizens.

Fine. Stay ignorant. It’s a free country (for now).
Oh, jings crivens!

Nazz, you usually seem to talk sensibly, but that comment sounds as reactionary and idiotic as the pundits on Fox.

Oh, jings crivens!

Nazz, you usually seem to talk sensibly, but that comment sounds as reactionary and idiotic as the pundits on Fox.

So the story about the FBI abusing its Patriot Act power doesn't bother you? The wiretap stories from last year don't worry you? Presidential signing statements are okay with you? Benjamin Franklin knew what he was saying when he said we have a Republic if we can keep it.

So many Fox apologists seem to miss the line between "looking into" and "making shit up." I wonder why that is?

Because of reality's liberal bias.

They look at reality the way that OJ's lawyers looked at evidence.

"Isn't it suspicious that all the news in the world makes it look like Dubya's doing a bad job? And isn't it convenient that all the news that makes Democrats look bad just happens not to be true? Isn't that a big coincidence?"

To bad they're not literally hitting back. I've always wanted to see Al Franken heft a 60-pound warhammer and knock Bill O'Reilly across the room while Sean Hannity and John Edwards duel while Hannity screams "You killed my father, prepare to die!" and suddenly Hillary walks in and is all like "fuck this shit" and fires an RPG into Rupert Murdoch's office but is gunned down by Monica Lewinsky who is now working at Fox News while Colmes just cowers in the corner and Ann Coulter walks in and spits acid onto a desk, causing it to melt away so then Al Sharpton walks in and opens a window, sending sunlight spilling onto Ann Coulter's exposed flesh and she BURSTS INTO FLAMES! WOULDN'T THAT BE AWESOME?

Because of reality's liberal bias.

They look at reality the way that OJ's lawyers looked at evidence.

"Isn't it suspicious that all the news in the world makes it look like Dubya's doing a bad job? And isn't it convenient that all the news that makes Democrats look bad just happens not to be true? Isn't that a big coincidence?"

Yes, it's all a co-ordinated effort to make stupid people look... well, stupid.

How does that help Gore? The only effect that could have is to make Florida Gore voters who waited until the last minute think that the vote is already decided in Gore's favor and give them an excuse to stay home. If it did anything it COST Gore votes.

Yes, but Republican's like to claim that things being done accomplish the opposite of what they do.

Like how they say that Democrats are racist for being pro-welfare. Or that the Bankruptcy deform bill makes bankruptcy "more fair for debtors." You can promote healthy forests by chopping down all the trees in them.

Refrain from polarising me; I always thought you were an opponent of the man who said, “You’re either with us or against us.”

PENGUIN!

So yeah, you're a south pole type, aren't you? You stuck-up elitist.

So the story about the FBI abusing its Patriot Act power doesn’t bother you? The wiretap stories from last year don’t worry you? Presidential signing statements are okay with you? Benjamin Franklin knew what he was saying when he said we have a Republic if we can keep it.
Your “stay ignorant” comment to Celtlund was unnecessary and reactionary. So too is your ridiculous assumption that my opposition to such a comment is equal to me not giving a dingo’s kidney about widespread abuse of governmental power and an erosion of civil liberties in the face of violence.

One of the most disgusting themes of American media, including news, drama and comedy programs, is the polarisation of your nation’s citizens. American or Anti-American. Liberal or Conservative. Republican or Democrat. Bias to the Left or bias to the Right. Yadda yadda yadda.

Refrain from polarising me; I always thought you were an opponent of the man who said, “You’re either with us or against us.”

PENGUIN!

So yeah, you’re a south pole type, aren’t you? You stuck-up elitist.
I’m a Polar Bear. Never seen a Penguin in my life!

*eats seal*

To bad they're not literally hitting back. I've always wanted to see Al Franken heft a 60-pound warhammer and knock Bill O'Reilly across the room while Sean Hannity and John Edwards duel while Hannity screams "You killed my father, prepare to die!" and suddenly Hillary walks in and is all like "fuck this shit" and fires an RPG into Rupert Murdoch's office but is gunned down by Monica Lewinsky who is now working at Fox News while Colmes just cowers in the corner and Ann Coulter walks in and spits acid onto a desk, causing it to melt away so then Al Sharpton walks in and opens a window, sending sunlight spilling onto Ann Coulter's exposed flesh and she BURSTS INTO FLAMES! WOULDN'T THAT BE AWESOME?

Isn't that the new comedy series from the CW?

you mean Glenn Beck?

Glen Beck is NOT on CNN! He's on CNNHN!

:rolleyes:

Now if the Republican candidates do the same thing to CNN everyone can go home happy. :eek:

Hear Hear!

If the Republicans do that....I'll be laughing my head off.

It started a few weeks back when Barack Obama decided to freeze out Fox News following their attack pieces on him. They were the primary television people behind the "Obama might be an ebil Muslim" story that first appeared n a magazine printed by the Moonie Times.

It continued when John Edwards decided to forgo a debate co-sponsored by the Nevada Democratic party and Fox News. People all over left-blogistan decried the pairing of the Nevada Dems and Fox News, remembering all the bullshit Fox pulled in the 2004 primary season debates they hosted. (Misleading scrawls, banners that read "Democrat Primary debates," post-mortems done by hostile pundits--that sort of stuff.)

Well, thanks to pressure from other groups and the refusal of other candidates to commit to the debate--Richardson announced he was pulling out an hour before this happened--the debate is dead. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3069.html) Fox News will not be involved in any Democratic debate in Nevada.

Well done. Let them talk to Joe Lieberman some more.
'Bout time.

I don't think there's any good reason for Democrats to ever speak to Faux News. Their "pundits" and "journalists" can make shit up just fine without Democrats helping them out.

So many Fox apologists seem to miss the line between "looking into" and "making shit up." I wonder why that is?

:rolleyes: So many fox bashers seems to miss the line between "looking into" and "making shit up". I wonder why that is?

You know Nazz. EVERY NEWS NETWORKS fuck up. Every single one has made mistakes. The problem is you have so many media watchdog groups on both sides of the aisle, how does one filter out shit from facts? Oh yea! Its difficults to do.

Glen Beck is NOT on CNN! He's on CNNHN!

Same company--that's the important thing, isn't it?

So the story about the FBI abusing its Patriot Act power doesn't bother you?

Its the FBI! They always abuse their power. This is nothing new. Why is everyone so shocked about it?

The wiretap stories from last year don't worry you?

No I"m not worried about it.

Presidential signing statements are okay with you? Benjamin Franklin knew what he was saying when he said we have a Republic if we can keep it.

Signing statements happen all the time under presidents Nazz. Bush has signed several more than usual but it is not unconstitutional. *shrugs*

One of the most disgusting themes of American media, including news, drama and comedy programs, is the polarisation of your nation’s citizens. American or Anti-American. Liberal or Conservative. Republican or Democrat. Bias to the Left or bias to the Right. Yadda yadda yadda.

Hear! Hear!!

Same company--that's the important thing, isn't it?

Two different channels. That was the point of the argument. He's not on CNN and he is on CNN Headline News. Which I believe is channel 31 where I'm at and CNN is 32. Fox News is 34 here :D

Gotta love digi cable :D

The conservative response to reality when it contradicts them is that it has a liberal bias, and they beat that drum constantly.

"You see, polls reflect reality. And I think the President shouldn't listen to them, because reality has a well known liberal bias."

Its the FBI! They always abuse their power. This is nothing new. Why is everyone so shocked about it?There's no shock in my post--concern, dismay, anger, yes, but no shock. And just because it happens that means we're just supposed to shrug our shoulders and not try to stop it?



No I"m not worried about it. Can't say as I'm suprised.



Signing statements happen all the time under presidents Nazz. Bush has signed several more than usual but it is not unconstitutional. *shrugs*
Not signing statements like this Corny. Not signing statements that basically tell Congress and the nation "Congress passed this law, and I don't like it, but instead of vetoing it, I'm just not going to enforce it, and in some cases, I'm going to continue to do the exact opposite." Bush doesn't get to interpret laws, Corny--that's the court's job in the Constitution. Bush's job is to execute the laws. It's in his oath of inauguration.

There's no shock in my post--concern, dismay, anger, yes, but no shock. And just because it happens that means we're just supposed to shrug our shoulders and not try to stop it?

There really is nothing the average citizen can do short of telling the FBI to go screw themselves. The only thing we can do is to tell Congress to do something about it or we'll find new representatives.

Can't say as I'm suprised.

*shrugs*

Not signing statements like this Corny. Not signing statements that basically tell Congress and the nation "Congress passed this law, and I don't like it, but instead of vetoing it, I'm just not going to enforce it, and in some cases, I'm going to continue to do the exact opposite."

You know how many laws are passed in the past that were hardly ever enforced? Again, this is nothing new. Do I like it? No but there is nothing I can do about it. Not going to worry about something that I cannot change.

Bush doesn't get to interpret laws, Corny--that's the court's job in the Constitution. Bush's job is to execute the laws. It's in his oath of inauguration.

His oath of Office is to protect, defend, and preserve the Constition. Yes he is to Execute the Office of the Presidency but ya know? That can mean anything in reality. :D

Hear Hear!

If the Republicans do that....I'll be laughing my head off.

I would too, since it means Republicans are committing political suicide. CNN, unlike Fox, has better worldwide coverage, not to mention that aside from a bunch of reactionaries, Fox doesn't hold much water to the rest of America.

:rolleyes: So many fox bashers seems to miss the line between "looking into" and "making shit up". I wonder why that is?


I'm fairly certain you were screaming for blood when an image published by AP showing a warzone had more smoke photoshopped into it than was real.

And here you are defending what was an obvious attempt at slander.

I have a new title for you. Corny the hypocrite. You will be henceforth known by that title.

His oath of Office is to protect, defend, and preserve the Constition. Yes he is to Execute the Office of the Presidency but ya know? That can mean anything in reality. :D

Hey, THERE'S an idea! Let's let the executive do whatever he likes!

Oh...oh wait...isn't that like a dictator? You know, the kind of thing we try to prevent from happening with all those neat little checks and balances set up in the government? Nah...surely we could just give the President the power to do whatever they want...better yet, let's make it a monarchy...not let we've ever been screwed over by that before...

His oath of Office is to protect, defend, and preserve the Constition. Yes he is to Execute the Office of the Presidency but ya know? That can mean anything in reality. :D

So in other words...a president can dissolve congress, gun down people on national TV, declare himself dictator for life....and he can use signing statements to get away with it?

If so, I'm going to get myself elected. I look forward to your execution by spork.

I have a new title for you. Corny the hypocrite. You will be henceforth known by that title.

Well that's the silliest nickname I've ever heard. Why not "Cornholio"?

It started a few weeks back when Barack Obama decided to freeze out Fox News following their attack pieces on him. They were the primary television people behind the "Obama might be an ebil Muslim" story that first appeared n a magazine printed by the Moonie Times.

It continued when John Edwards decided to forgo a debate co-sponsored by the Nevada Democratic party and Fox News. People all over left-blogistan decried the pairing of the Nevada Dems and Fox News, remembering all the bullshit Fox pulled in the 2004 primary season debates they hosted. (Misleading scrawls, banners that read "Democrat Primary debates," post-mortems done by hostile pundits--that sort of stuff.)

Well, thanks to pressure from other groups and the refusal of other candidates to commit to the debate--Richardson announced he was pulling out an hour before this happened--the debate is dead. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3069.html) Fox News will not be involved in any Democratic debate in Nevada.

Well done. Let them talk to Joe Lieberman some more.

This could end up working both ways. I, for one, would boycott CBS and NBC News.

Hear! Hear!!

You're more full of words than action, it would seem.

This could end up working both ways. I, for one, would boycott CBS and NBC News.

Why? Their bias, like CNN and ABC, are corporate and not American liberal or American conservative. Fox News' bias is both corporate AND American conservative, prompting it to be thusly derided, as I would definitely deride any network with an American liberal bias. Thing is, one does not exist. Any perceived bias in networks such as CNN is a mistaken perception, as they show what they show for ratings and ratings alone.

This could end up working both ways. I, for one, would boycott CBS and NBC News.

I'm sure they're cringing in fear.

Why? Their bias, like CNN and ABC, are corporate and not American liberal or American conservative. Fox News' bias is both corporate AND American conservative, prompting it to be thusly derided, as I would definitely deride any network with an American liberal bias. Thing is, one does not exist. Any perceived bias in networks such as CNN is a mistaken perception, as they show what they show for ratings and ratings alone.

Like I mentioned earlier, the only group that could be said to have a liberal bias is Pacifica, which does both radio and tv, and is best known for Democracy Now. And in terms of accuracy, I'd take them over Fox any day, even though I'm often cautious of the way they cover stories.

Like I mentioned earlier, the only group that could be said to have a liberal bias is Pacifica, which does both radio and tv, and is best known for Democracy Now. And in terms of accuracy, I'd take them over Fox any day, even though I'm often cautious of the way they cover stories.

Pacifica what? Never heard of it.

But then I haven't been watching television/listening to radio news for quite some time now, so I've probably just not noticed it. Wouldn't be the first thing I've never noticed...

Pacifica what? Never heard of it.

But then I haven't been watching television/listening to radio news for quite some time now, so I've probably just not noticed it. Wouldn't be the first thing I've never noticed...

They're easy to miss, because they're tiny. I watch them occasionally on satellite on LinkTV and Free Speech TV, and you can hear them online. Very lefty, unapologetically so.

Pacifica what? Never heard of it.


Exactly.

Exactly.

They have a few transmistters still. Shows you how little their audience is.

They're easy to miss, because they're tiny. I watch them occasionally on satellite on LinkTV and Free Speech TV, and you can hear them online. Very lefty, unapologetically so.

Oh, I see. Well, then I must ask: do they make stuff up and otherwise make a lot of "mistakes" whenever they broadcast news like Fox News does, or are they more accurate, just with a left-winged bias?

Oh, I see. Well, then I must ask: do they make stuff up and otherwise make a lot of "mistakes" whenever they broadcast news like Fox News does, or are they more accurate, just with a left-winged bias?

More accurate than Fox by a long ways, but certainly look at things from a particular perspective. Their strongest suit is their south of the border reporting, because they generally interview journalists on the ground in Latin America and tell sides of stories you'll never hear in the corporate media.

More accurate than Fox by a long ways, but certainly look at things from a particular perspective. Their strongest suit is their south of the border reporting, because they generally interview journalists on the ground in Latin America and tell sides of stories you'll never hear in the corporate media.

Not like CBS, who Photoshop their evidence and call it authentic material from a 1970s typewriter.

More accurate than Fox by a long ways, but certainly look at things from a particular perspective. Their strongest suit is their south of the border reporting, because they generally interview journalists on the ground in Latin America and tell sides of stories you'll never hear in the corporate media.

Fascinating. I should check it out at some point, eh?

Fascinating. I should check it out at some point, eh?

Yes. Pacifica is actually interesting.

Not like CBS, who Photoshop their evidence and call it authentic material from a 1970s typewriter.
You know, you bring that up like it's established fact or something, but it's curious that the commission set up to investigate it never found any proof of forgery, even though they tried. Here's the report. (http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report.pdf) On page 14, second paragraph of the executive summary, you can read this:
The panel has not been able to conclude with absolute certainty whether the Killian documents are authentic or forgeries. However, the Panel has identified a number of issues that raise serious questions about the authenticity of the documents and their content.
In short, they didn't come to any conclusion other than to say that their coverage--on this single part of the overall story--was shoddy. But shoddy is a far cry from forging documents, which is what you're claiming.

But hey--you're the great goalpost mover around here, DK, so I shouldn't be surprised.

In short, they didn't come to any conclusion other than to say that their coverage--on this single part of the overall story--was shoddy. But shoddy is a far cry from forging documents, which is what you're claiming.

Not DK.

More to the point - too many people proved it was a fake, and not produced on a typewriter. That commission you cited was an exercise in ass-covering.

I guess that's why they fired people, eh? Forced Dan Rather to retire before he wanted to?

Since it's beyond question that it was a fake, and impossible to create on typewriters of the time, how can you say it wasn't a forgery? Isn't that the definition of forgery, or are you once again going to parse words to defend the indefensible?

You know Nazz. EVERY NEWS NETWORKS fuck up. Every single one has made mistakes.

True. But in most news organisations the journalists, editors, sub-editors, producers etc usually strive to actually give some form of balance to their articles or stories or whatever they produce. Fox however doesn't just fuck up, they encourage their reporters to make Conservatives and Republicans look good.

To bad they're not literally hitting back. I've always wanted to see Al Franken heft a 60-pound warhammer and knock Bill O'Reilly across the room while Sean Hannity and John Edwards duel while Hannity screams "You killed my father, prepare to die!" and suddenly Hillary walks in and is all like "fuck this shit" and fires an RPG into Rupert Murdoch's office but is gunned down by Monica Lewinsky who is now working at Fox News while Colmes just cowers in the corner and Ann Coulter walks in and spits acid onto a desk, causing it to melt away so then Al Sharpton walks in and opens a window, sending sunlight spilling onto Ann Coulter's exposed flesh and she BURSTS INTO FLAMES! WOULDN'T THAT BE AWESOME?

Yes. Yes it would. And then Kerry comes in but is reading the paper and Brit Hume uses his lizard tongue to smack it out of his hands and Kerry is like "What you doin' nigga bein' all up in my bidness? Ima kick yo ass!" and then drives over him with a swiftboat.

And for the record, CNN International is the best news Channel I've ever seen. Does it get broadcast inside the US?

Wow, Nazz. Even the expert hired by CBS...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_authenticity_issues#Dr._David_Hailey.27s_analysis


The CBS review panel led by Dick Thornburgh and Louis Boccardi hired Peter Tytell, a leading document examiner, to analyse the four documents:

concluded ... that (i) the relevant portion of the Superscript Exemplar was produced on an Olympia manual typewriter, (ii) the Killian documents were not produced on an Olympia manual typewriter and (iii) the Killian documents were produced on a computer in Times New Roman typestyle [and that] the Killian documents were not produced on a typewriter in the early 1970s and therefore were not authentic.[

Not authentic? Then they must have been fakes. Forged, that is.

DK

Damn it, Nazz, Eve is not Deep Kimchi, despite whatever evidence you think you've come up with to prove that he is. I don't see why Eve would continue to maintain he is not if he truly was, anyway, as the only reason for hiding one's identity would be to hide the fact that they were a previously banned member from the mods, and the mods have so many neat ways of identifying one that one would be foolish to even think that would help them in any way, shape or form. Furthermore, we'd have seen at least one mod refer to him as Deep Kimchi by now. He's not Deep Kimchi, so stop calling him that already.

Not DK.

More to the point - too many people proved it was a fake, and not produced on a typewriter. That commission you cited was an exercise in ass-covering.

I guess that's why they fired people, eh? Forced Dan Rather to retire before he wanted to?

Since it's beyond question that it was a fake, and impossible to create on typewriters of the time, how can you say it wasn't a forgery? Isn't that the definition of forgery, or are you once again going to parse words to defend the indefensible?

The firing was the ass-covering. If the documents couldn't have been produced on the typewriters available at the time, then why hedge in the report? Let me let you in on something--just because the idiots at Powerline make a claim, it ain't necessarily so. In fact, their credibility is down there with Drudge on a good day. They've been wrong so many times that it's often a better bet to read what they write and then do exactly the opposite.

The firing was the ass-covering. If the documents couldn't have been produced on the typewriters available at the time, then why hedge in the report? Let me let you in on something--just because the idiots at Powerline make a claim, it ain't necessarily so. In fact, their credibility is down there with Drudge on a good day. They've been wrong so many times that it's often a better bet to read what they write and then do exactly the opposite.

You missed the post I just made on the CBS experts - who said it was a fake.

You missed the post I just made on the CBS experts - who said it was a fake.

So why relegate that to the appendix? Why not put it up front in the Executive Summary? That makes absolutely no sense.

Look, I don't want to rewage this war--it was bullshit then and it's bullshit now, because nothing about those documents changed the underlying story, and the story is dead now because Bush won.

So why relegate that to the appendix? Why not put it up front in the Executive Summary? That makes absolutely no sense.

Look, I don't want to rewage this war--it was bullshit then and it's bullshit now, because nothing about those documents changed the underlying story, and the story is dead now because Bush won.

I get it - nothing about the documents being fake changes their fake message, but we won't talk about how fake they were because Bush won.

Ok, Ephialtes.

I get it - nothing about the documents being fake changes their fake message, but we won't talk about how fake they were because Bush won.

Ok, Ephialtes.

No--the Killian documents were merely the last in a long line of documents which questioned the amount of service Bush actually did in the TANG. But nice try at moving those goalposts again--you must have a very strong back. Probably comes from all the bowing and scraping you do to the Republican party.

i find it amusing that, in a country that allegedly exists to promote the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, a country where an effigy known as the 'statue of liberty' is its most famous landmark, the word 'liberal' is regarded as such a negative concept by so many of its citizens.

While you may have the luxuary of finding it amusing, those of us who live here and look at the world through a lense that we think does promote the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness find it scarey as hell.

The founding fathers were revolutionaries, which means they were about as liberal as one can get.

While you may have the luxuary of finding it amusing, those of us who live here and look at the world through a lense that we think does promote the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness find it scarey as hell.

The founding fathers were revolutionaries, which means they were about as liberal as one can get.

Different definition of "liberal" - about as far from the modern day "liberal" as you can get without undergoing nuclear fission on the spot.

To bad they're not literally hitting back. I've always wanted to see Al Franken heft a 60-pound warhammer and knock Bill O'Reilly across the room while Sean Hannity and John Edwards duel while Hannity screams "You killed my father, prepare to die!" and suddenly Hillary walks in and is all like "fuck this shit" and fires an RPG into Rupert Murdoch's office but is gunned down by Monica Lewinsky who is now working at Fox News while Colmes just cowers in the corner and Ann Coulter walks in and spits acid onto a desk, causing it to melt away so then Al Sharpton walks in and opens a window, sending sunlight spilling onto Ann Coulter's exposed flesh and she BURSTS INTO FLAMES! WOULDN'T THAT BE AWESOME?


Yes. Yes it would. And then Kerry comes in but is reading the paper and Brit Hume uses his lizard tongue to smack it out of his hands and Kerry is like "What you doin' nigga bein' all up in my bidness? Ima kick yo ass!" and then drives over him with a swiftboat.

I would so want to see this.

Given that people now equate liberal these days with gay marriage, pro-choice, and other similar things, he's actually not that far off, as those are further "liberties" being granted. By contrast, making gay marriage illegal is curtailing the "liberties" of gay people.

Growing the nanny-state, making universal health care, etc., is certainly not liberal in the classic sense.

Neither party qualifies these days.

Different definition of "liberal" - about as far from the modern day "liberal" as you can get without undergoing nuclear fission on the spot.

Given that people now equate liberal these days with gay marriage, pro-choice, and other similar things, he's actually not that far off, as those are further "liberties" being granted. By contrast, making gay marriage illegal is curtailing the "liberties" of gay people.

Disclaimer: And yes, I didn't elaborate on the pro-choice statement, because that issue has been done to death on this forum, and I'm speaking from personal experience, and I've only been here two months. If you wish to call me out on a pro-choice standpoint being pro-"liberty" then please do so in a new thread.

Growing the nanny-state, making universal health care, etc., is certainly not liberal in the classic sense.

Neither party qualifies these days.
I can't see how having the "Liberty" to stave to death from no money or food is a good thing.
I can't see how having the "Liberty" to die in the street from no health care is a good thing.

No, it's not liberal in the classical sense, but then liberal in the classical sense is an economic label for one who advocates further economic freedom. I would say, though, that there is still a true left and true right in our nation, but these are statements made about the social scale, rather than the economic one.

Liberal in the classic sense also is more "libertarian", and fears big government.

Growing the nanny-state, making universal health care, etc., is certainly not liberal in the classic sense.

Neither party qualifies these days.

No, it's not liberal in the classical sense, but then liberal in the classical sense is an economic label for one who advocates further economic freedom. I would say, though, that there is still a true left and true right in our nation, but these are statements made about the social scale, rather than the economic one.

Is everyone quite finished with comparing the size of their favourite news source’s penis?

Wow – news sources are biased. Well gee whiz! Maybe if folk would pull their heads out of their polarised asses for two minutes, they might be able to form their own opinion on the news presented to them; instead of slavishly following whatever news channel holds support for their preferred political party.

Then we might get on to this worrying predilection for using small-l liberal and small-l conservative for left-of-centre and right-of-centre respectively.

Is everyone quite finished with comparing the size of their favourite news source’s penis?

Wow – news sources are biased. Well gee whiz! Maybe if folk would pull their heads out of their polarised asses for two minutes, they might be able to form their own opinion on the news presented to them; instead of slavishly following whatever news channel holds support for their preferred political party.

Then we might get on to this worrying predilection for using small-l liberal and small-l conservative for left-of-centre and right-of-centre respectively.

You see, it's more than just senseless mudslinging. Fox actually tried to make people think Foley was a democrat, and they use tabloid journalism whenever they can get away with it.

You see, it's more than just senseless mudslinging. Fox actually tried to make people think Foley was a democrat, and they use tabloid journalism whenever they can get away with it.

no no, see, it was an honest mistake that Fox news labled the lead congressman in one of the biggest political scandals of the year a Democrat.

Twice

Three weeks before an election

And never retracted it.

Pure and honest mistake.

no no, see, it was an honest mistake that Fox news labled the lead congressman in one of the biggest political scandals of the year a Democrat.

Twice

Three weeks before an election

And never retracted it.

Pure and honest mistake.

I heard they did it four times.

You see, it’s more than just senseless mudslinging. Fox actually tried to make people think Foley was a democrat, and they use tabloid journalism whenever they can get away with it.
Fox tried to make people think something! O noes!!

Were they using they evil mind-altering ray again? Was Rupert Murdoch waving his hands in front of the pundits, hypnotising people, chanting, “Democrats are evil. Vote Republican.”?

If only human beings had some sort of capacity for rational, objective thought. If only our brains had the capacity for scepticism. If only there was some sort of transnational communication system that could deliver data straight to your desktop, some way of corroborating facts. Oh, wait....

If only human beings had some sort of capacity for rational, objective thought. If only our brains had the capacity for scepticism. If only there was some sort of transnational communication system that could deliver data straight to your desktop, some way of corroborating facts. Oh, wait....


Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me.

.

Fox tried to make people think something! O noes!!

Were they using they evil mind-altering ray again? Was Rupert Murdoch waving his hands in front of the pundits, hypnotising people, chanting, “Democrats are evil. Vote Republican.”?

If only human beings had some sort of capacity for rational, objective thought. If only our brains had the capacity for scepticism. If only there was some sort of transnational communication system that could deliver data straight to your desktop, some way of corroborating facts. Oh, wait....

They were slightly more subtle than that. They posted his name with a (D) at the end, four times, without retracting it.

So basically it's OK to lie if your lie can easily be uncovered by research? No wonder you still support Bush.

They were slightly more subtle than that. They posted his name with a (D) at the end, four times, without retracting it.

So basically it’s OK to lie if your lie can easily be uncovered by research? No wonder you still support Bush.
Yeah, here’s me. ‘Still’ supporting Bush. Yup. Die-hard Republican me. Yeah, because if you look down at my political leanings, you’ll see they’re in line with the Republican party. The Reps are still an anarchist collective, yeah?

Way to go. In attempting to call out Fox’s inaccurate portrayal of someone’s political leanings, you’ve inaccurately portrayed my political leanings. By a fucking mile. Hey look! I didn’t swallow your bullshit, and using my deductive reasoning and research, rationalised for myself the actual facts about the event.

Nice polarisation too! Not agreeing = supporter of Bush. Hell, I don't know why you guys are so against Fox. You use exactly the same tactics against your opponents.

No wonder the American political scene is in such a awful mess.

Yeah, here’s me. ‘Still’ supporting Bush. Yup. Die-hard Republican me. Yeah, because if you look down at my political leanings, you’ll see they’re in line with the Republican party. The Reps are still an anarchist collective, yeah?

Way to go. In attempting to call out Fox’s inaccurate portrayal of someone’s political leanings, you’ve inaccurately portrayed my political leanings. By a fucking mile. Hey look! I didn’t swallow your bullshit, and using my deductive reasoning and research, rationalised for myself the actual facts about the event.

Nice polarisation too! Not agreeing = supporter of Bush. Hell, I don't know why you guys are so against Fox. You use exactly the same tactics against your opponents.

No wonder the American political scene is in such a awful mess.

*whimper* there are still moderates here, you know. Just cuz there's only, like 10 of us doesn't mean we don't exist...

*whimper* there are still moderates here, you know. Just cuz there's only, like 10 of us doesn't mean we don't exist...

Ah, shush, you.

*whimper* there are still moderates here, you know. Just cuz there's only, like 10 of us doesn't mean we don't exist...
Of course you exist, and I'd wager there's a hell of a lot more moderates than your media is portraying. But of course, that doesn't fit into the liberal vs. conservative framework; the ridiculous and intellectually devoid polarisation that is afflicting the US currently.

Of course you exist, and I'd wager there's a hell of a lot more moderates than your media is portraying. But of course, that doesn't fit into the liberal vs. conservative framework; the ridiculous and intellectually devoid polarisation that is afflicting the US currently.

:eek: I just took a look at your compass. You're clearly not a Republican.

Well that's the silliest nickname I've ever heard. Why not "Cornholio"?

I've christened him Communal Property since he's been owned by a lot of people on NSG.

True. But in most news organisations the journalists, editors, sub-editors, producers etc usually strive to actually give some form of balance to their articles or stories or whatever they produce. Fox however doesn't just fuck up, they encourage their reporters to make Conservatives and Republicans look good.

Except for the fact that they cover both sides of an issue a tad more thoroughly than other networks. But hey, I'm not going to tell you how to think. It is apparent you have a bias against Fox News, as do most people here who do not like conservatives or republicans, but to say it is out to make them look good, is stretching the point somewhat.

I'm not going to dissuade you from it though. That is not my way.

no no, see, it was an honest mistake that Fox news labled the lead congressman in one of the biggest political scandals of the year a Democrat.

Twice

Three weeks before an election

And never retracted it.

Pure and honest mistake.

Thank god it did them a lot of fucking good. How're the Dems doing in the House again? Can I get a "Thank you, Fox"?

So why relegate that to the appendix? Why not put it up front in the Executive Summary? That makes absolutely no sense.

Look, I don't want to rewage this war--it was bullshit then and it's bullshit now, because nothing about those documents changed the underlying story, and the story is dead now because Bush won.

And what story would that be? You are right that the story was dead. It is dead because it was F-A-L-S-E!!!

Is everyone quite finished with comparing the size of their favourite news source’s penis?

Wow – news sources are biased. Well gee whiz! Maybe if folk would pull their heads out of their polarised asses for two minutes, they might be able to form their own opinion on the news presented to them; instead of slavishly following whatever news channel holds support for their preferred political party.

Then we might get on to this worrying predilection for using small-l liberal and small-l conservative for left-of-centre and right-of-centre respectively.

Hear! Hear! I could not agree with you more Chumblywumbly

Fox tried to make people think something! O noes!!

Were they using they evil mind-altering ray again? Was Rupert Murdoch waving his hands in front of the pundits, hypnotising people, chanting, “Democrats are evil. Vote Republican.”?

Yes yes, because it's not like it's possible for a news agency to actually make people think something. It's inconceivable that when people who watch fox news and have never heard of foley see that he is being listed as a democrat, they might think he's a democrat.

Wait...that's pretty fucking conceivable after all. In fact, if they were doing it intentionally, that can actually bee seen as a direct effort to influence people's opinions.

Yeah, here’s me. ‘Still’ supporting Bush. Yup. Die-hard Republican me. Yeah, because if you look down at my political leanings, you’ll see they’re in line with the Republican party. The Reps are still an anarchist collective, yeah?

Way to go. In attempting to call out Fox’s inaccurate portrayal of someone’s political leanings, you’ve inaccurately portrayed my political leanings. By a fucking mile. Hey look! I didn’t swallow your bullshit, and using my deductive reasoning and research, rationalised for myself the actual facts about the event.

Give it up Chumbly. Both sides on here will paint inaccurate pictures of those who they disagree with. That is the sad truth on this board. I believe that this board is more polarized than the entire Congress put together.

Nice polarisation too! Not agreeing = supporter of Bush. Hell, I don't know why you guys are so against Fox. You use exactly the same tactics against your opponents.

Hear! Hear! And well said to boot.

No wonder the American political scene is in such a awful mess.

Sad but true :(

Yes yes, because it’s not like it’s possible for a news agency to actually make people think something. It’s inconceivable that when people who watch fox news and have never heard of foley see that he is being listed as a democrat, they might think he’s a democrat.

Wait...that’s pretty fucking conceivable after all. In fact, if they were doing it intentionally, that can actually bee seen as a direct effort to influence people’s opinions.
A number of points for your illumination:

Firstly, I never said that it was inconceivable that people pick up false information from the news. I merely stated, in a rather sarcastic manner, that Fox isn’t forcing anybody to believe their information; nor is any other news network for that matter. There’s no brainwashing ray, no hypnotism going on; you are free to believe what you like. We have a capacity for rational deliberation and scepticism, and this capacity should be used at all times, especially when disseminating information from media sources. Automatically believing information from a news source, just because it’s a news source that you trust is completely idiotic.

So to is only obtaining your news from one source. Within hours, minutes probably, blogs, opinion pieces, TV shows (I specifically remember The Daily Show) and newspapers were covering Fox’s (deliberate?) mistake. I’m more than 2000 miles away from any TV that picks up Fox, yet within two days of their first labelling of Foley as a Democrat, I was aware, not only of the act, but of the backlash against it. After checking multiple news sources and websites, as well as watching the original Fox clip online, it was clear that Foley was no Democrat.

Secondly, even if Foley was a Democrat, what difference would it make to his particular case? Being a Republican who fools around with underage boys is no more a scandal than being a Democrat who fools around with underage boys. His political party has no bearing whatsoever on his actions.

Unless *gasp* certain people were using Foley’s crime as a political tool to mar the Republicans, just as Fox has used different scandals in the private sphere to mar the Democrats? Shome mishtake shurely?

Give it up Chumbly. Both sides on here will paint inaccurate pictures of those who they disagree with. That is the sad truth on this board. I believe that this board is more polarized than the entire Congress put together.
There are quite a few vocal posters who certainly can’t see outside of the liberal vs. conservative / Democrat vs. Republican box. On a number of threads now, my questioning a deviation from the Democrat party line has been greeted with assumptions that I must be a fanatical supporter of the Republicans and Bush; despite my political compass and location being clearly visible on each of my posts.

However, I’m glad to say that there’s plenty more posters with a far more mature and realistic appraisal of politics here on NS:G, and they are one of the main reasons I frequent these boards so much.

So to is only obtaining your news from one source. Within hours, minutes probably, blogs, opinion pieces, TV shows (I specifically remember The Daily Show) and newspapers were covering Fox’s (deliberate?) mistake. I’m more than 2000 miles away from any TV that picks up Fox, yet within two days of their first labelling of Foley as a Democrat, I was aware, not only of the act, but of the backlash against it. After checking multiple news sources and websites, as well as watching the original Fox clip online, it was clear that Foley was no Democrat.

Secondly, even if Foley was a Democrat, what difference would it make to his particular case? Being a Republican who fools around with underage boys is no more a scandal than being a Democrat who fools around with underage boys. His political party has no bearing whatsoever on his actions.

Unless *gasp* certain people were using Foley’s crime as a political tool to mar the Republicans, just as Fox has used different scandals in the private sphere to mar the Democrats? Shome mishtake shurely?

The problem is, that checking a blog, or CNN, or any other news source other than FOX generally requires you to do something. And people in this country hate that. It makes it feel like work. It's much easier to sit down in front of the couch, put FOX on, and let it all soak into your brain.

Or something.

The problem is, that checking a blog, or CNN, or any other news source other than FOX generally requires you to do something. And people in this country hate that. It makes it feel like work. It's much easier to sit down in front of the couch, put FOX on, and let it all soak into your brain.

Or something.

Karl Marx once said Religion is the opiate of the masses. Media outlets like FOXNews is the Crystal Meth. Cheap to make and addictive. Chumbly Wumbly underestimates the power of human laziness and stupidity in dismissing the effects that partisan organizations like FOXNews has on the American populace.

The problem is, that checking a blog, or CNN, or any other news source other than FOX generally requires you to do something. And people in this country hate that. It makes it feel like work. It’s much easier to sit down in front of the couch, put FOX on, and let it all soak into your brain.
Well, that’s other people’s problem. I’m not going to start believing everything the BBC, Fox, CNN, Indymedia, The Guardian, The Daily Mail or any other news source pump out just because other people do.

I’d prefer they didn’t, and to be honest, in today’s world of instant media at any time and virtually any place, you’d be hard-pressed to filter out all news sources bar one.

Karl Marx once said Religion is the opiate of the masses. Media outlets like FOXNews is the Crystal Meth. Cheap to make and addictive. Chumbly Wumbly underestimates the power of human laziness and stupidity in dismissing the effects that partisan organizations like FOXNews has on the American populace.

I have a mind-bogglingly obscure and nonsensical idea. How about we, as Americans and world citizens, stop bitching about media bias and start educating ourselves. And then we're better people for it and biased news won't be such a problem, while still allowing the corporations to make their profits and feel good about their financial peni...um...success.

Oh who am I kidding? A plan where everybody wins won't work in the US.

Well that's the silliest nickname I've ever heard. Why not "Cornholio"?

A silly nickname for a silly boy.

I have a mind-bogglingly obscure and nonsensical idea. How about we, as Americans and world citizens, stop bitching about media bias and start educating ourselves. And then we're better people for it and biased news won't be such a problem, while still allowing the corporations to make their profits and feel good about their financial peni...um...success.

Oh who am I kidding? A plan where everybody wins won't work in the US.

This is why I generally don't get my news from the mainstream outlets anymore. Unless NPR counts as a mainstream outlet. And I generally check the stuff I hear on NPR with other sources.

Not that everyone should do that or anything, but it helps, I think.

On a number of threads now, my questioning a deviation from the Democrat party line has been greeted with assumptions that I must be a fanatical supporter of the Republicans and Bush; despite my political compass and location being clearly visible on each of my posts.


Hey man, I've been called a fanatical "fundie" (despite being an atheist) for my views before. I got called a Republican before too a while back. It's actually quite funny.

Hey man, I've been called a fanatical "fundie" (despite being an atheist) for my views before. I got called a Republican before too a while back. It's actually quite funny.

Yeah. I mean I'll bet there's at least one person on here who things I'm some sort of America-hating fundamentalist Hindu.

No? Nobody? Ok then. *goes to the sulk corner*

No? Nobody? Ok then. *goes to the sulk corner*

You Hindu, you!!!

*shakes fist*

You and your darma!!!

*seethes*

:D

It is apparent you have a bias against Fox News, as do most people here who do not like conservatives or republicans

True I don't like conservatives, but that isn't why I dislike Fox News. I dislike it because I am a student of journalism, and it is a bastardised conservative-cheerleader with no integrity but which has tremendous influence over people too dumb to realise it is all a load. I would be just as dismissive of it, believe it or not, if it was XOF News and had an equal amount of pro-liberal or pro-something else bias.

but to say it is out to make them look good, is stretching the point somewhat.

No, it is not stretching the point in the least. Fox News is produced specifically to give a positive image of conservatives and Republicans. They send out memos to employees telling them what side to take on an issue or to go easy on Bush or hard on Kerry. For God's sake, they openly stated for their comedy show they did recently that they wanted to do it from a conservative POV. Have you ever even watched the channel?

True I don't like conservatives, but that isn't why I dislike Fox News. I dislike it because I am a student of journalism, and it is a bastardised conservative-cheerleader with no integrity but which has tremendous influence over people too dumb to realise it is all a load. I would be just as dismissive of it, believe it or not, if it was XOF News and had an equal amount of pro-liberal or pro-something else bias.



No, it is not stretching the point in the least. Fox News is produced specifically to give a positive image of conservatives and Republicans. They send out memos to employees telling them what side to take on an issue or to go easy on Bush or hard on Kerry. For God's sake, they openly stated for their comedy show they did recently that they wanted to do it from a conservative POV. Have you ever even watched the channel?
There's also a dishonesty inherent in Fox News, as shown by their recent ad campaign where they claim, "Not the usual left-wing bias." It's not enough that they have a slant of their own and deny it, but they attack the competition by claiming an opposite bias where none exists.

A number of points for your illumination:

Firstly, I never said that it was inconceivable that people pick up false information from the news. I merely stated, in a rather sarcastic manner, that Fox isn’t forcing anybody to believe their information; nor is any other news network for that matter. There’s no brainwashing ray, no hypnotism going on; you are free to believe what you like. We have a capacity for rational deliberation and scepticism, and this capacity should be used at all times, especially when disseminating information from media sources. Automatically believing information from a news source, just because it’s a news source that you trust is completely idiotic.

So to is only obtaining your news from one source. Within hours, minutes probably, blogs, opinion pieces, TV shows (I specifically remember The Daily Show) and newspapers were covering Fox’s (deliberate?) mistake. I’m more than 2000 miles away from any TV that picks up Fox, yet within two days of their first labelling of Foley as a Democrat, I was aware, not only of the act, but of the backlash against it. After checking multiple news sources and websites, as well as watching the original Fox clip online, it was clear that Foley was no Democrat.

Secondly, even if Foley was a Democrat, what difference would it make to his particular case? Being a Republican who fools around with underage boys is no more a scandal than being a Democrat who fools around with underage boys. His political party has no bearing whatsoever on his actions.

Unless *gasp* certain people were using Foley’s crime as a political tool to mar the Republicans, just as Fox has used different scandals in the private sphere to mar the Democrats? Shome mishtake shurely?

Except that in this particular case the republicans deserved to be marred, as they had protected foley and failed to do anything about him for years. If people thought he was a democrat, then the Democratic party would be blamed for that.

Except that in this particular case the republicans deserved to be marred, as they had protected foley and failed to do anything about him for years. If people thought he was a democrat, then the Democratic party would be blamed for that.And don't forget the whole "Republicans are the party of family values" part of the story. Hypocrisy is relevant, even if it is a bitch. It's like the same kind of hell one of the founders of MADD caught when she took a job as a consultant in the liquor industry.

There’s also a dishonesty inherent in Fox News, as shown by their recent ad campaign where they claim, “Not the usual left-wing bias.” It’s not enough that they have a slant of their own and deny it, but they attack the competition by claiming an opposite bias where none exists.
Worse than that, there’s no left wing in American politics! Well, not what I’d call left wing. I’d say the Democrats are a centre-right party at best.

And don’t forget the whole “Republicans are the party of family values” part of the story. Hypocrisy is relevant, even if it is a bitch. It’s like the same kind of hell one of the founders of MADD caught when she took a job as a consultant in the liquor industry.
Well, ‘family values’ is one of these relative political terms, like ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’. So easy to manipulate.

So technically the Republicans are supportive of family values; just Republican family values. Unless your implying that they’re the party of underage sex?

Sorry, but has there ever really been?
There was quite an active communist and anarchist political wing in the US during the 1880s-1940s, IIRC.

Worse than that, there’s no left wing in American politics! Well, not what I’d call left wing. I’d say the Democrats are a centre-right party at best.

Sorry, but has there ever really been?

Well, ‘family values’ is one of these relative political terms, like ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’. So easy to manipulate.

So technically the Republicans are supportive of family values; just Republican family values. Unless your implying that they’re the party of underage sex?

Depends, how many Mormons are Republican?

D'oh. Ok, used my one bigotted comment for the day.

Worse than that, there’s no left wing in American politics! Well, not what I’d call left wing. I’d say the Democrats are a centre-right party at best.
It's a matter of perspective. Compared to Latin America or Europe, certainly there's a marginal at best left wing in the US. We're trying though--we've been dragged so far to the right in the last 25 years or so that it's taking some real effort just to get us back to center.

Well, ‘family values’ is one of these relative political terms, like ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’. So easy to manipulate.

So technically the Republicans are supportive of family values; just Republican family values. Unless your implying that they’re the party of underage sex?

The use of abstract terms in politics is superabundant. It's one of the things I focus on in my poetry classes. I'll be hitting that next week, especially with e. e. cummings's "next to of course god america i."

The use of abstract terms in politics is superabundant. It’s one of the things I focus on in my poetry classes. I’ll be hitting that next week, especially with e. e. cummings’s “next to of course god america i.”
You teaching or being taught?

The use of abstract terms in politics is superabundant. It's one of the things I focus on in my poetry classes. I'll be hitting that next week, especially with e. e. cummings's "next to of course god america i."

Cool. I always wanted to take a class geared specifically towards poetry. Had to settle for a Creative Writing class that, while it improved my writing, did little for my ability to develop an adequate plot.

Is this an elective or are you an English major?

Edit: Also, more of a T. S. Elliot fan, personally. Though I go in for Poe every now and then when I'm feeling dour.

Cool. I always wanted to take a class geared specifically towards poetry. Had to settle for a Creative Writing class that, while it improved my writing, did little for my ability to develop an adequate plot.

Is this an elective or are you an English major?

Edit: Also, more of a T. S. Elliot fan, personally. Though I go in for Poe every now and then when I'm feeling dour.

Heh. I'm a teacher--one step below tenure level at a university, but a major step above adjunct. I got my MFA in Creative Writing nearly 4 years ago and did a 2 year fellowship at Stanford.

There was quite an active communist and anarchist political wing in the US during the 1880s-1940s, IIRC.

Yes, especially during World War I and the Great Depression. The Left was at the forefront of the antiwar movement, and a prominent Socialist, Eugene V. Debs, campaigned for President from prison and received quite a few votes.

We're trying though--we've been dragged so far to the right in the last 25 years or so that it's taking some real effort just to get us back to center.

If only we get back there, and stay there. :(

Heh. I’m a teacher—one step below tenure level at a university, but a major step above adjunct. I got my MFA in Creative Writing nearly 4 years ago and did a 2 year fellowship at Stanford.
Cool, I’m wanting to do the same after I graduate; but tutoring/lecturing in Philosophy not Creative Writing. I’ve even pondered coming across to your side of the Atlantic. I’ve heard it may be easier to get a starting post in the US, working for a couple of years till I have enough recognition to get a post back here in the UK.

Heh. I'm a teacher--one step below tenure level at a university, but a major step above adjunct. I got my MFA in Creative Writing nearly 4 years ago and did a 2 year fellowship at Stanford.

Ah. Cool. Academics is the path I plan on taking once I get my BS.

I've met some really wild/weird humanities/english professors in college experience. You've now been added that mental list.

Cool, I’m wanting to do the same after I graduate; but tutoring/lecturing in Philosophy not Creative Writing. I’ve even pondered coming across to your side of the Atlantic. I’ve heard it may be easier to get a starting post in the US, working for a couple of years till I have enough recognition to get a post back here in the UK.

If you need a hand, I've got a few friends in the philosophy department at my old university. I can't guarantee they need new people, but I can ask.

Cool, I’m wanting to do the same after I graduate; but tutoring/lecturing in Philosophy not Creative Writing. I’ve even pondered coming across to your side of the Atlantic. I’ve heard it may be easier to get a starting post in the US, working for a couple of years till I have enough recognition to get a post back here in the UK.

Don't make much money, but it's hard to beat the hours. ;)

If you need a hand, I’ve got a few friends in the philosophy department at my old university. I can’t guarantee they need new people, but I can ask.
Thanks! Though I’ve still got to get a 1:1 degree, then a masters, then a postgrad. At least, that’s what has been advised to do.

Don't make much money, but it's hard to beat the hours. ;)

Aye, my boss (work in a lab for one of the Associate Profs in the Physics Department) teaches two classes this semester, 6 hours a week, but apparently for research profs (what I want to do) it's usually 3 hours a week of teaching. Factor in 5 hours of office hours a week, plus 3-4 hours of procedural stuff, and those are DAMN good hours.

Aye, my boss (work in a lab for one of the Associate Profs in the Physics Department) teaches two classes this semester, 6 hours a week, but apparently for research profs (what I want to do) it's usually 3 hours a week of teaching. Factor in 5 hours of office hours a week, plus 3-4 hours of procedural stuff, and those are DAMN good hours.

I teach four classes a term--like I said, not tenured yet--so that's about 12 hours a week in the classroom, another 6 in office hours, and then prep work and grading. On a bad week, I'll hit 40 hours if I'm swamped with grading. Usually, it's closer to 30, which gives me time to do my writing and sending crap out to try to get published. And then there are the summers. Since I'm deferring some of my pay till the summer, I can teach half if I want, or not at all. I'm teaching half just to work on a credit card bill or two.

Don’t make much money, but it’s hard to beat the hours. ;)
As long as can sustain myself and continue my philosophical research, I’m not bothered about cash.

And yeah, the hours and holidays do appeal!

Mostly, I can’t wait till I can start publishing my own work and debating with the big boys and girls. And indoctrinating students of my own... :D

As long as can sustain myself and continue my philosophical research, I’m not bothered about cash.

And yeah, the hours and holidays do appeal!

Mostly, I can’t wait till I can start publishing my own work and debating with the big boys and girls. And indoctrinating students of my own... :D

My favorite is "Introduction to Hating America First," followed closely by "Left-Wing Indoctrination 1101." ;)

My Creative Writing class was more along the lines of "Let's write stuff and laugh along with the marginally insane professor, because while he may dress like a hobo, he most certainly is not a hobo."

Got an A in that class, btw.
Only marginally insane? He's a keeper, trust me. :p

My favorite is "Introduction to Hating America First," followed closely by "Left-Wing Indoctrination 1101." ;)

My Creative Writing class was more along the lines of "Let's write stuff and laugh along with the marginally insane professor, because while he may dress like a hobo, he most certainly is not a hobo."

Got an A in that class, btw.

Yes. Yes it would. And then Kerry comes in but is reading the paper and Brit Hume uses his lizard tongue to smack it out of his hands and Kerry is like "What you doin' nigga bein' all up in my bidness? Ima kick yo ass!" and then drives over him with a swiftboat.

So then Katie Couric, dressed only in a sword belt and a leather collar walks out and runs Clarence Thomas through and then Paula Zahn, dressed in a leather schoolgirl outfit is all like "why you be messin' wit my man!" and swings a hatchet at Katie Couric, whilst Oprah sweeps up the ashes of Ann Coulter and then Captain America, whose been watching the news, is all like "Oh those bastards gonna kill me off, eh?" And so after blowing up Marvel headquarters he walks into the news place and throws Al Franken against a wall but fortunately Robert Byrd's on the scene and throws a yea vote through the Captain, knocking him down. But then Strom Thurmond, who used ancient and forbidden dark magicks to return as a lich walks in and is all like "Watchoo doing mai, stealing mai longest serving record muthafucka!" and then he throws a fireball at Byrd, but Byrd deflects the spell and retaliates with a bolt of positive energy, which burns the flesh of the undead racist! And then Jerry Brown and the Dead Kennedys come in and are all like "CALIFORNIA UBER ALLES!!!!" And blasts Strom Thurmond, not realizing Strom's defense of being undead and is knocked out by Strom's evil eye. And then Arlen Specter comes in and is all like "Remember my magic bullet theory, bitches? You laughed, but I've finally gotten it to work!" Then he pulls out a bolt-action rifle and sends a bullet at Strom and Byrd, but the built-up magical energy melts the bullet, but then Specter turns and fires it at Oprah and Dr. Phil, who are hiding in the corner. That one bullet inflicts 7 wounds. Then Miles O'Brien comes in and is all like "Dude. I just realized I have the same name as a Star Trek character. Might as well live up to it." Then he whips out two disruptors and fires them at Colmes, but then Hannity's all like "LET FREEDOM RING!!!" And smashes Miles O'Brien over the head with a GIANT FUCKING BELL!


Oh yeah. We may have an idea for a movie right here.

So then Katie Couric, dressed only in a sword belt and a leather collar walks out and runs Clarence Thomas through and then Paula Zahn, dressed in a leather schoolgirl outfit is all like "why you be messin' wit my man!" and swings a hatchet at Katie Couric, whilst Oprah sweeps up the ashes of Ann Coulter and then Captain America, whose been watching the news, is all like "Oh those bastards gonna kill me off, eh?" And so after blowing up Marvel headquarters he walks into the news place and throws Al Franken against a wall but fortunately Robert Byrd's on the scene and throws a yea vote through the Captain, knocking him down. But then Strom Thurmond, who used ancient and forbidden dark magicks to return as a lich walks in and is all like "Watchoo doing mai, stealing mai longest serving record muthafucka!" and then he throws a fireball at Byrd, but Byrd deflects the spell and retaliates with a bolt of positive energy, which burns the flesh of the undead racist! And then Jerry Brown and the Dead Kennedys come in and are all like "CALIFORNIA UBER ALLES!!!!" And blasts Strom Thurmond, not realizing Strom's defense of being undead and is knocked out by Strom's evil eye. And then Arlen Specter comes in and is all like "Remember my magic bullet theory, bitches? You laughed, but I've finally gotten it to work!" Then he pulls out a bolt-action rifle and sends a bullet at Strom and Byrd, but the built-up magical energy melts the bullet, but then Specter turns and fires it at Oprah and Dr. Phil, who are hiding in the corner. That one bullet inflicts 7 wounds. Then Miles O'Brien comes in and is all like "Dude. I just realized I have the same name as a Star Trek character. Might as well live up to it." Then he whips out two disruptors and fires them at Colmes, but then Hannity's all like "LET FREEDOM RING!!!" And smashes Miles O'Brien over the head with a GIANT FUCKING BELL!


Oh yeah. We may have an idea for a movie right here.Or at least a YouTube video. :D

Only marginally insane? He's a keeper, trust me. :p

I'm being nice, largely on the off chance that you are this fellow. :D He was a cool prof, just loopy. Though I got the impression he was considerably more sane than he let on.

I'm being nice, largely on the off chance that you are this fellow. :D He was a cool prof, just loopy. Though I got the impression he was considerably more sane than he let on.

If it was a fiction class, it wasn't me. I know my limitations, and writing fiction is high on that list of limitations.

Or at least a YouTube video. :D

The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny, Part 2.

The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny, Part 2.

Let's have pink floyd music in the background.

Pigs on the Wing, Pt 2:

You know that I care
YOU MOTHER FUCKER!
What happens to you
OH IT'S SO ON!
And I know that you care
OH YEAH?
For me too.
HURGH!
So I don't feel alone
AARRRGGGHHHH
From the weight of the stone
GAHHHH
Now that I've found somewhere safe
IMA STAB YOU
To bury my bones
THERE WON'T BE ANYTHING TO BURY WHEN I'M DONE WITH YOU, BYRD!
Any a fool knows
BOOOOOMMM
A dog needs a home
CRAAAAAAAASSSSHHH
A Shelter
HUGIK
From pigs on the wing
AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGHHHHHHHHHHHhh

Let's have pink floyd music in the background.

Pigs on the Wing, Pt 2:

-lyrics-

Hm...this is actually making me wish I knew how to draw and animate.

If it was a fiction class, it wasn't me. I know my limitations, and writing fiction is high on that list of limitations.

It was a "Here's the standing assignment of what you need to submit to me by the end of the term" followed by 10 weeks of teaching us about how to write without sucking badly (I like to think that part wasn't as necessary for me :) ) and how to write poetic forms I'd never even heard of.

Bloody pantoums.

It was a "Here's the standing assignment of what you need to submit to me by the end of the term" followed by 10 weeks of teaching us about how to write without sucking badly (I like to think that part wasn't as necessary for me :) ) and how to write poetic forms I'd never even heard of.

Bloody pantoums.
If pantoums were involved, I can guarantee you it wasn't me. Hell, I've only ever written one villanelle in my life. The pantoum is just a miserable form to work in.

If pantoums were involved, I can guarantee you it wasn't me. Hell, I've only ever written one villanelle in my life. The pantoum is just a miserable form to work in.

Ugh. Tell me about it. I like to think the one I wrote was good, but it's such a bloody horrible form to fit a poem into. I just hate recursion, I guess.
My poetry tends to be stream of consciousness, anyway.

Thankfully that and the sestina were the only truly exotic forms we had to work with.

Ugh. Tell me about it. I like to think the one I wrote was good, but it's such a bloody horrible form to fit a poem into. I just hate recursion, I guess.
My poetry tends to be stream of consciousness, anyway.

Thankfully that and the sestina were the only truly exotic forms we had to work with.

The sestina can be fun to work with, if you take liberties with the repeated words. Puns are especially good in those. Merrill had fun in "Tomorrows."

Tomorrows

The question was an academic one.
Andrey Sergeyvitch, rising sharp at two,
Would finally write that letter to his three
Sisters still in the country. Stop at four,
Drink, tea, dress elegantly and, by five,
Be losing money at the Club des Six.

In Pakistan a band of outraged Sikhs
Would storm an embassy (the wrong one)
And spend the next week cooling off in five
Adjacent cells. These clearly were but two
Vital details-though nobody cared much for
The future by that time, except us three.

You, Andree Meraviglia, not quite three,
Left Heidelberg. Year, 1936.
That same decade you, Lo Ping, came to the fore
In the Spiritual Olympics, which you won.
My old black self I crave indulgence to
Withhold from limelight, acting on a belief I've

Lived by no less, no more, than by my five
Senses. Enough that circus music (BOOM-two-three)
Coursed through my veins. I saw how Timbuctoo
Would suffer an undue rainfall, 2.6
Inches. How in all of Fairbanks, won-
der of wonders, no polkas would be danced, or for

That matter no waltzes or rumbas, although four
Librarians, each on her first French 75,
Would do a maxixe (and a snappy one).
How, when on Lucca's greenest ramparts, three-
fold emotion prompting Renzo to choose from six
Older girls the blondest, call her tu,

It would be these blind eyes hers looked into
Widening in brief astonishment before
Love drugged her nerves with blossoms drawn from classics
Of Arab draftsmanship-small, ink-red, five-
Petaled blossoms blooming in clusters of three.
How she would want to show them to someone!

But one by one they're fading. I am too.
These three times thirteen lines I'll write down for
Fun, some May morning between five and six.

The sestina can be fun to work with, if you take liberties with the repeated words. Puns are especially good in those. Merrill had fun in "Tomorrows."Wow, that shit almost made Umberto Eco look artless.

Wow, that shit almost made Umberto Eco look artless.
I like Eco too. I'm currently reading The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana. An old friend of mine did the translation.

If pantoums were involved, I can guarantee you it wasn't me. Hell, I've only ever written one villanelle in my life. The pantoum is just a miserable form to work in.

I wouldn't know a villanelle from a pantoum, but I do a bit of creative writing in my spare time. Check your TG for details Nazz. I'm in the market for a proof reader of sorts. =p

I'm in the market for a proof reader of sorts. =p
One who proofreads the letters in Penthouse Forum? That kind of thing is important. I always put it on my resume, anyway.

Well, ‘family values’ is one of these relative political terms, like ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’. So easy to manipulate.

So technically the Republicans are supportive of family values;
Of course GOP are supportive of Family values.
It's just that it's Manson Family values they're supporting.

One who proofreads the letters in Penthouse Forum? That kind of thing is important. I always put it on my resume, anyway.

I'm not sure I fully get what you're getting at, but uhhh, no. Not that kind.

I like Eco too. I'm currently reading The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana. An old friend of mine did the translation.

I think I'll stick to The Hollow Men and Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came, for now.

There's also a dishonesty inherent in Fox News,

And in most, if not all, news sources. :rolleyes:

Sorry, but has there ever really been?

Not that I can recall.

Yes, especially during World War I and the Great Depression. The Left was at the forefront of the antiwar movement, and a prominent Socialist, Eugene V. Debs, campaigned for President from prison and received quite a few votes.

900,000 or so. Wouldn't it be a hoot if he won from jail?

Not even close, kid, and you're guilty of it too just there by selectively quoting me. Why didn't you quote the whole sentence and reply to it? Here it is:

Now, if you'd quoted the whole thing and then made your reply, well, you'd have looked like your garden variety idiot. But no--you pulled a Corny, which meant you pulled only a small section of the sentence which was in a quote pages and pages back, and then tried to make it seem as though you were replying to something else. No cable news source is actively trying to label its competition as liberal other than Fox News. Or do you have information of which we are unaware?

*yawns*

And in most, if not all, news sources. :rolleyes:

Not even close, kid, and you're guilty of it too just there by selectively quoting me. Why didn't you quote the whole sentence and reply to it? Here it is:
There's also a dishonesty inherent in Fox News, as shown by their recent ad campaign where they claim, "Not the usual left-wing bias."
Now, if you'd quoted the whole thing and then made your reply, well, you'd have looked like your garden variety idiot. But no--you pulled a Corny, which meant you pulled only a small section of the sentence which was in a quote pages and pages back, and then tried to make it seem as though you were replying to something else. No cable news source is actively trying to label its competition as liberal other than Fox News. Or do you have information of which we are unaware?

*yawns*

In other words, you have diddly-squat as usual. Ah well, too bad for you Dear Leader sacked Rumsfeld so you can't relive the glory days of declaring everyone who wanted him fired to be talking out of their asses eh?